Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: 'No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.' So who in the government did tell ;anybody' not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision.

There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and whyand based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversationsdid President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

Yet Obama still claims -entirely to the contrary- that he 'gave an order' to secure our personnel- another stinking lie: ________________________________________________________________________________

Gateway Pundit:Obama told Denvers WUSA TV this in regard to the Benghazi 9-11 terror attack, 'I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, were going to investigate exactly what happened to make sure it doesnt happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.'Tonight however, Bing West, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, told Greta Van Susteren, 'If that actually happened the way President Obama said it happened, theres a paper trail and I think people reasonably enough can say, 'Can we see the order?' because hundreds of others supposedly saw this order.Obama just got caught. He lied about his securing our personnel in Benghazi. And now the world will know about it...

Typical top brass military politician; he threw his lot in with this contemptible POS POTUS, and now runs for the hills to save his own skin. If he had real brass balls, he should’ve figured out a way to go around that pu$$y and have military intervention take place to save those real Americans in Bengazi, even if it cost him his job. Oh well, too much to lose, I guess, however in the the end hopefully truth wins out.

Obviously the current occupant of the oval office is the one who made the decision. No one in this administration can do anything on their own. The Anointed One is in charge and gives all the orders.

He has not yet been impeached, which proves that half the American public has its head up its a$$, the mainstream media have deliberately chosen to protect him, and the Republican party is a bunch of wimps.

4
posted on 10/27/2012 6:14:56 AM PDT
by I want the USA back
(The media is completely irresponsible.)

Uh, I respect Petreaus- Obama coaxed him into the CIA to politically neutralize him, but I for one am happy to see him there, one element of sanity in this foul administration.

As far as Libya goes, looks like Hillary, Petraeus, and others all came out for providing the aid the consulate was asking for... and the guy that stopped them’s about to lose his job over it, among other things

Regrettably sometimes the brass has to wait to show brass. This perhaps was/is one of those times. Am grateful some, with brass, are speaking up. By speaking up, it makes it more difficult for zer0 and his crowd to coverup.

6
posted on 10/27/2012 6:17:47 AM PDT
by no-to-illegals
(Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)

Follow the graphics to the part about Eisenhower never taking credit for D-Day. The truth of that was that Eisenhower prepared to take responsibility if it had been the disaster it could have been.

Eisenhower prepared a headline to release if the good guys lost on Normandy. It said: Our Forces have been withdrawn from Normandy.

Eisenhower scratched that and replaced it wirh: I have withdrawn our forces from Normandy.

An interesting difference with our Child-in-Chief...Obama doesn't know what it's like to take responsibility when there is need for heavy lifting. He never actually experienced it, responsibility, that is...or heavy lifting.

Long ago I was a SEAL officer and I attended many joint and combined operational planning meetings in the USA, abroad, and on ships at sea. This type of rescue mission is called a "NEO" operation, for Non-combatant Evacuation Operation. Every embassy and consulate has and practices all kinds of emergency evac plans, in concert with the US military.

For example, Marines and SEALs practice NEO ops prior to deploying on every float, as a VERY high priority mission. They involve full dress-rehearsals, with civilian role players, helos, landing craft, rounding up stranded stragglers, opfor ambushes, role-playing "angry mobs," fighting your way to LZs or even beaches while protecting a gaggle of civilians down to babies etc. Conducting successful NEO ops is a TOP TOP TOP military and state department mission priority. I cannot emphasize this enough. NEO ops are planned and practiced over and over and over.

When the alarm goes off worldwide that an embassy or consulate is being attacked, the entire U.S. military swings into rescue mode, without waiting for any orders from the White House. The military does all of the operational planning and begins to execute the rescue op.

The one thing they CAN'T do is cross an international border without permission from POTUS. So the US Military will be inbound full-steam-ahead to make the rescue, and all they need from POTUS is a "proceed" order. In this case, they got a "stand down" instead.

This is at the POTUS level, it is not a decision taken at State. State and the military (JCS) should be in the Situation Room with POTUS soon after a critical incident like this begins, so all decisions can be made in real time. (I have heard nowhere that POTUS went into the Situation Room at all. Apparently he went to the Oval Office briefly, but not down to the Situation Room, where the "war planning" screens, full staffs and commo tools are all located for dealing with a major crisis.)

But if POTUS punts after a brief Oval Office meeting with Dempsey and Hillary and goes upstairs to the family quarters....the stranded Americans will die.

Only POTUS can give the order to cross international borders. Only POTUS can allow US warplanes to give air support to Americans battling on the ground in a foreign country. If POTUS makes himself unavailable, the Americans will die.

Even the VEEP or Secretary of State cannot make that call. The VEEP can only do it if the POTUS is determined to be medically unable to perform his functions. If the POTUS goes upstairs and turns off his phone, there is nothing anybody can do about it. Nothing. And the besieged Americans will die.

On Friday an anonymous Pentagon insider ("Doug") called into Rush with a lot of new details about this disgraceful fiasco. But what we really need now is for a high-ranking officer with insider knowledge to go public, risk his pension and career, and tell the truth.

The blame for this humiliating and shameful national disgrace is pointing directly at the POTUS, and America needs to know why the inbound rescue operation was aborted.

Patraeus may or may not resign. I truly do not know. At this time though, there has to be someone who will say what is true, and keep eyes on the zer0 crowd for the good that will come from having done such. The media will do what they always do, unfortunately, and will spout the liberal lies, regrettably, no matter how this plays out. The media thinks they have made a deal with the devil, and when the devil turns on the media only then will the media, supporting zer0 and zer0’s crowd, realize their mistake. God and Generals sometimes take the road not taken by the masses. This may be one of those times. I truly do not know. I do know this. I would always like to have someone on the inside. Especially now. If Mr. Patraeus is the person in this role, along with others, am grateful, for the lies will be more difficult to cover-up.

15
posted on 10/27/2012 6:48:11 AM PDT
by no-to-illegals
(Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)

Admirals and generals have excellent retirements. Any admiral or general could retire and live very comfortably. I think that’s one reason they do have a good retirement. They can retire as a means of protest. How many have? It always comes down to the same argument with them, “Yes, I could resign in protest, but then the Democrats would cut the budget to get revenge.” The Democrats will cut the military budget anyway.

18
posted on 10/27/2012 7:04:11 AM PDT
by blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer")

So Patraeus spoke, big deal...he is obfuscating the obvious and trying to save his own hide. He could have said clearly that the CIA didn't have the authority to go in and that the authority is the purview of the POTUS, but he didn't. He is trying to walk a rope that I hope breaks. Don't we have any people capable of speaking the truth in this whole disgusting Administration?

19
posted on 10/27/2012 7:18:57 AM PDT
by pepperdog
( I still get a thrill up my leg when spell check doesn't recognize the name/word Obama!)

Patraeus is effectively saying that there were ZERO calls for help from Wood or Doherty or any one else. [That doesn't ring true.]

Your conclusion does not necessarily follow. Patraeus is saying that no one at the CIA told people not to give aid. Calls for help could have gone to others than the CIA. The CIA could have said "we need higher authorization" and were denied it from the POTUS". So there are at least these two other possibilities.

Calls for aid would normally be to the U.S. military, not the CIA. See Travis McGee's excellent posts on this subject. Patraeus seems to be pointing a finger upstairs at the POTUS with this declaration.

He parroted Obamas line about the video protests getting out of hand. He ONLY spoke up when the story fell flat and it was revaealed that CIA was told to stand dowm.

He knows the truth, but only gives little hints now. He could tell the whole rotten story, but he still protects Obama. He’s corrupt or a coward.

Our government lies to us as often and enthusiastically as any totalitarian enemy we scream about. Guys like Petraeus are right in the thick of it. And leaving grunts behind a machine gun with no fire support is nothing new to Petraeus, he used the same rules in Afghanistan. Men have died there many times, screaming for arty or air only to have it denied because the enemy was in a building.

This is the most evil thing you can do, is refuse fire support to someone in a firefight.

Where’s that old Norman Rockwell poster. The man manning a machine gun. “Lets give him enough,,,and on time”.

23
posted on 10/27/2012 7:47:39 AM PDT
by DesertRhino
(I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)

Those men hammering away behing the gun, fighting for their lives didn’t have that luxury. They lost thier very lives, but we cannot expect “brass” to risk their job? Their time to show brass was chosen for them. So was Petraeus’s, and he shrunk away from his duty.

Petraeus is a coward. When he saw those men abandoned to die, he should have immediately told the story, no matter WHAT the consequences to him and his career. Instead, HE also pushed the story that it was a spontaneous riot due to the video. If that story would have flown, he’d still be silent.

This is why our senior officer corps is becoming universally hated. They expect balls out loyalty and effort from the ranks, but they must be allowed to carefully shepherd their precious career.

24
posted on 10/27/2012 7:57:03 AM PDT
by DesertRhino
(I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)

When and why...did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

The more the lies and denials continue, the more I lean in favor of the "conspiracy theory" that BHO setup the ambassador to be taken hostage so BHO could "justify" the release of that terrorist back to Egypt without all the blow-back.

“Patraeus seems to be pointing a finger upstairs at the POTUS with this declaration. “

Then why not just say it in plain english? He could tell us PRECISELY who decided what, why, and their exact words. Is there ONE person in our national government, military or intelligence agencies who is not an abject liar?
Why is this level of dishonesty towards the American people tolerated? A half truth is a full lie.

Almost every single word they say to us is rife with lies. Every press conference, every statement, every speech. All of it.
This incidently is the hallmark of a dictatorship, not a constitutional republic.

Does anybody believe that people like Petraeus, Obama, Hillary, Beohner, Mitchell, Justice Roberts simultaneously believe we cannot be told the truth, yet hold the people in reverence politically? NO, they see themselves as our Platonic guardians, and that we do not need information because we do not make decisions.

28
posted on 10/27/2012 8:16:16 AM PDT
by DesertRhino
(I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)

“He parroted Obamas line about the video protests getting out of hand.”

The only report of Patraeus saying that comes form a Democrat party hack, who says that he said it in a closed House of Representatives briefing. We have Senators saying he never said it in their Senate briefing.

Patraeus cannot defend himself on this because he is not allowed to reveal what was said in the briefing's.

I strongly suspect that the Democrat representative is the one doing the lying to assist in the coverup.

If I am wrong, please correct me, but that is the only way that I have heard this.

Woods and Doherty were contract employees for some intelligence agency to track down missing surface-to- missiles. That agency was probably the CIA. If it was the CIA, they apparently requested to engage 2-3 times and were told to 'stand down.' They eventually disobeyed and ran into the fight.

If they called for help, they would be calling 'their' boss. They would expect 'their' boss to act accordingly.

So, who gave the 2-3 'stand down' orders? Someone with a pay grade above Woods and Doherty had to.

Patraeus's comment basically says no one gave a 'stand down' order.

==

There are so many versions, so much misinformation and conjecture (partly by design), that it will take a full fledged investigation to ever know the truth. And even then, we might get a muddled PR/PC piece like the 9-11-01 Commission Report.

NO excuses. He knows that the American public is being lied to and is hiding behind the skirts of “classified briefings” to advance the lie.

If he knows the truth, and refuses to let the disinfecting sunshine in, he is as bad as the liar in chief, maybe worse. Those SEALs risked and lost their lives. And this coward won’t risk his career or a criminal charge to expose the treason that killed them? He isn’t fit to even discuss them.

33
posted on 10/27/2012 8:26:55 AM PDT
by DesertRhino
(I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)

Then why not just say it in plain english? He could tell us PRECISELY who decided what, why, and their exact words. Is there ONE person in our national government, military or intelligence agencies who is not an abject liar?

So far the State Department and the CIA have told you exactly who made the decision in the most diplomatic way they can. If this had been Republican administration this would have been blasted from the rooftops of every news organization in a constant stream of condemnation.

It is rather amazing in terms of history what both of these organizations have said. This is no longer Hillary covering her behind and pointing fingers. The CIA statement even gave cover for the DOD....nobody is falling on their sword for this President and they have just told the world.

FRiend, it is difficult to display brass when dealing with a cic saying no. I'll leave my comment at the aforestated, and wait for more. Not ready to give up or surrender. Coward run. Am not running. To know what happened, and what the truth is ... sometimes brass is overruled. At this point I would not doubt the brass was told no by zer0. It would fit into the pattern displayed by zer0. Generals do not hate their Men, otherwise the Men would hate their Generals. Now the cic (named zer0) could be an entirely different matter when it comes to hate. Will wait FRiend. This story is not going away.

37
posted on 10/27/2012 8:41:30 AM PDT
by no-to-illegals
(Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)

Thank you for expressing my sentiments exactly. It’s not enough to “not deny them aid”. The right answer is to do the right thing and help them, then after you’ve saved them show up first thing in the morning at the White House with your resignation in hand.

If he was unable to help them, he should still resign because he was forced to uphold and support an abhorrent policy.

It is the duty of any honorable man or soldier in situations like this to do the right thing first, follow orders later. This government, and a large portion of our military command do not seem to be populated by honorable men.

The only two men to ‘do the right thing’ first and follow orders later in this story are the two SEALs that died, if I’m to understand the reports correctly.

How any of these guys can work for and execute the orders of this President that sacrifices Americans in favor of just about anyone else is beyond me.

Sometimes one must be on the inside to get the truth to those in the field. This is maybe a time where having someone on the inside is more beneficial. I do not know, but when going up against someone who hates the Military as this zer0 crowd does, I would prefer there be someone inside feeding information to those on the outside. I do not know this is what is taking place though it could be, as well as it could not be. I'll take someone on the inside anytime over someone on the outside. That is just me.

40
posted on 10/27/2012 9:11:19 AM PDT
by no-to-illegals
(Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)

You’re right, there were 4. The two that lived did the right thing, and should be groomed for command somewhere, but will, no doubt, be ostracized for their implementing the greatest strength of the individual U.S. soldier - initiative.

Then why not just say it in plain english? He could tell us PRECISELY who decided what, why, and their exact words. <<

IMHO...Not the way it works!....(and if you think about it you wouldn't want it to).....He shouldn't be telling “us” anything that may be a security violation........It is, however, the job of congress to put him under oath in a classified setting so that the truth can be told without compromising classified intel/info....Having said that....I'm not sure Id trust congress to do the investigation right!......The CIA statement alone begs for an investigation....I believe that's why Petraeus authorized it

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.